Hey all.
I'm confused over the whole separate /usr partition is broken thing: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
From an email in current fedora-user thread we have:
"That should not be necessary. And would break a very normal system setup of using separate drives, *even more so than the blasted can't have a separate /usr thing that happened recently*."
During Fedora 18 fresh install with custom partitioning chosen, Anaconda autocompletes mount points so I went with /boot, /, /user, /var, and /home partitions.
Everything appears to work swimmingly here after 1 month of use -- separate /usr partition does not appear to be broken...anymore??
Just trying to future proof my setup; if it's better to merge /usr into rootfs, so be it, better to do it early days with the new system.
Otherwise, if someone can chime in here with some sage partitioning advice as to how to proceed moving forward with Fedora, that would be much appreciated.
FWIW, as a beginner the benefits I see in a diverse micro-managed partitioning scheme (vs. the mega partition) is being able to fsck quickly; clone partitions quickly (e.g. copy to additional disks), and prevent runaway logs and the like (there are likely others).
I'm thinking something like this would be "ideal" for a 256GB SSD:
/dev/sda1 /boot 181MB of 500MB /dev/sda2 / 606MB of 3GB
extended: /dev/sda4 /usr 6.0GB of 12GB /dev/sda5 /var 1.5GB of 8GB /dev/sda6 /home 15GB of 30GB free space the rest
Of course most seem to go with /boot / and /home, so my ideas are likely not grounded in reality ;-)
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:01 PM, users-request@lists.fedoraproject.orgwrote:
Send users mailing list submissions to users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to users-request@lists.fedoraproject.org
You can reach the person managing the list at users-owner@lists.fedoraproject.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of users digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Using Exim as a controlled relayer (Gary Stainburn)
- Re: Booting issues (Reindl Harald)
- Re: yum erase unused dependencies (Frank Murphy)
- Re: Limit of file siae on USB drives? (Patrick O'Callaghan)
- Re: yum erase unused dependencies (Patrick O'Callaghan)
- Fedora 18 network printer setup (D. Hugh Redelmeier)
- Re: Booting issues (Tim)
- Re: Limit of file siae on USB drives? (Tim)
- Re: undo rm -rf * (Tim)
- Re: Using Exim as a controlled relayer (Tim)
- Re: undo rm -rf * (Rejy M Cyriac)
- Re: Fedora 18 network printer setup (Tim Waugh)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gary Stainburn gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:47:40 +0000 Subject: Using Exim as a controlled relayer I've managed to get the Exim + Pgsql setup working.
For the domains I'm hosting I have a set of records which contain an email address within the domain and an delivery email address, e.g.
user@hosted.domain -> gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk
When I test this using
exim -bt user@hosted.domain
it works fine, but when I try to send an email it fails
relay not permitted.
Obviously i do not want to turn on relaying, so how can I configure Exim to allow emails that have matched a record in the user table to be forwarded?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:50:19 +0100 Subject: Re: Booting issues
Am 26.03.2013 22:28, schrieb Kinkaid:
As I dug around the boot up process a little, I found a curious message
about /mnt/usbdisk which was a usb drive I
had setup shortly before all the latest bit happened. I guess the init
process was hanging when it was trying to
mount the usb drive and that was halting the whole process. After I
removed the offending entry from /etc/fstab
all boots up normally now
"noauto" is your friend and the last bit to zero which indicates at least "no fsck" never configure temporary drives as like built-in ones
[root@localhost:~]$ cat /etc/fstab | grep noauto UUID=ea140964-634c-4fce-b587-9ce6a21b4cf9 /mnt/fileserver-backup ext4 rw,noexec,noatime,noauto 0 0
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Frank Murphy frankly3d@gmail.com To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:55:20 +0000 Subject: Re: yum erase unused dependencies On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:40:46 +0100 Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:32:59 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I recall last year a discussion of using yum to remove unwanted packages, and tell it to remove only dependencies which were used by no other package. I can't seem to find how that was done in my notes, could someone give me a pointer to the method?
yum list yum* yum info yum-plugin-remove-with-leaves
you could add the following to /etc/yum.conf "clean_requirements_on_remove=1"
-- Regards, Frank http//www.frankly3d.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:20:02 -0430 Subject: Re: Limit of file siae on USB drives? On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 13:55 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/26/2013 01:32 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
You can either split up your file or format the flash drive with a different filesystem. If you reformat it, it probably won't be usable under other OSes though.
If such things matter, you can do this to create a flash drive that the various snoopy government agencies can't easily read, without going to the bother of encrypting it, especially as some of them claim the right to demand encryption keys. It's not your fault that they're using a dain-bramaged OS that can't read OSS file systems, such as ext4, is it?
You mean like the one in my set-top box?
poc
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:22:49 -0430 Subject: Re: yum erase unused dependencies On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 20:40 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:32:59 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I recall last year a discussion of using yum to remove unwanted
packages, and
tell it to remove only dependencies which were used by no other
package. I can't
seem to find how that was done in my notes, could someone give me a
pointer to
the method?
yum list yum* yum info yum-plugin-remove-with-leaves
-- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) - Linux
3.9.0-0.rc3.git1.4.fc19.x86_64
loadavg: 0.15 0.08 0.06
package-cleanup can also be useful in this context.
poc
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" hugh@mimosa.com To: Fedora user-lists users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 18 network printer setup I have a Brother DCP-7065dn printer scanner connected to my LAN.
Sadly, it requires a proprietary driver. I've installed that. http://welcome.solutions.brother.com/bsc/public_s/id/linux/en/index.html
I asked the System Settings: Printers to set it up (add the printer). The SS:P found the printer (so it must have found its IP address) and added it. But the SS:P was only willing to configure it with the IP Address "localhost". Not surprisingly, printing didn't work.
I even tried telling SS:P the printer's IP address, but it ignored that and used localhost.
I used SS:P to remove the printer again.
I used the CUPS web server to add the printer (as suggested on the Brother page). That worked. My printer has a static IP address, which made pointing Firefox at it easier.
Why would Systems Settings: Printers not be able to add this network printer?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:20:22 +1030 Subject: Re: Booting issues
Kinkaid, Kyle:
I'm having some boot problems on my Fedora 18 workstation, KDE Spin.
System background:
I have a Dell Precision workstation, with two HDs, and full disk encryption. The two HDs are combined into three logical volumes, swap, root, and /home.
Richard Vickery:
I think I had a like problem to this that I solved by putting the partitions on the same drive, rather than using separate ones.
That should not be necessary. And would break a very normal system setup of using separate drives, even more so than the blasted can't have a separate /usr thing that happened recently.
I've used separate home drives, in the past, as a very simple way of being able to safely update a server without any chance of screwing up user data. Others have used separate swap drives as a way of speeding up swap, should you ever be stuck with having to make use of it. It's bad enough to have to use a drive for swap space, without having to put up with the thrashing of alternating between swapping and everything else it's trying to access on the drive.
Anyway, I note the original poster says they've solved their problem.
-- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.8.3-103.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Mar 18 15:46:01 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
My apologies for not including a virus with this message, but I don't use Windows.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:23:27 +1030 Subject: Re: Limit of file siae on USB drives? Allegedly, on or about 26 March 2013, Joe Zeff sent:
If such things matter, you can do this to create a flash drive that the various snoopy government agencies can't easily read, without going to the bother of encrypting it, especially as some of them claim the right to demand encryption keys. It's not your fault that they're using a dain-bramaged OS that can't read OSS file systems, such as ext4, is it?
It strikes me that the "snoopy" services will probably have no trouble reading something as un-bizarre as ext4. I dare say that such things are child's play to them. It would be a tech that would assess hardware, not just any member of their staff.
-- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.8.3-103.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Mar 18 15:46:01 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
My apologies for not including a virus with this message, but I don't use Windows.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:28:29 +1030 Subject: Re: undo rm -rf * Allegedly, on or about 26 March 2013, bruce sent:
as a face saving process... always test what ever you're going to do when using RM <<< and then substitute ls for rm to see what the results would be...
I would, also, think carefully about whether you really do need the force flag. Some people just jam that in out of habit.
-- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.8.3-103.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Mar 18 15:46:01 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
My apologies for not including a virus with this message, but I don't use Windows.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:31:13 +1030 Subject: Re: Using Exim as a controlled relayer Allegedly, on or about 26 March 2013, Gary Stainburn sent:
When I test this using
exim -bt user@hosted.domain
it works fine, but when I try to send an email it fails
relay not permitted.
Obviously i do not want to turn on relaying, so how can I configure Exim to allow emails that have matched a record in the user table to be forwarded?
Bearing in mind your bowlderised example, my simplistic answer would be to use real domain names (that you own) in your network. Things work a lot easier when you don't use fake domain names. Being able to email between machines, for just one example.
-- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.8.3-103.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Mar 18 15:46:01 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
My apologies for not including a virus with this message, but I don't use Windows.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rejy M Cyriac rcyriac@redhat.com To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:25:31 +0530 Subject: Re: undo rm -rf * On 03/27/2013 11:28 AM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 26 March 2013, bruce sent:
as a face saving process... always test what ever you're going to do when using RM <<< and then substitute ls for rm to see what the results would be...
I would, also, think carefully about whether you really do need the force flag. Some people just jam that in out of habit.
Reminded me of another dangerous habit some people get into - exiting 'vi/vim' with ':wq!' always.
-- Regards,
Rejy M Cyriac (rmc)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim Waugh twaugh@redhat.com To: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" hugh@mimosa.com, Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:44:29 +0000 Subject: Re: Fedora 18 network printer setup On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 01:41 -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
I have a Brother DCP-7065dn printer scanner connected to my LAN.
Sadly, it requires a proprietary driver. I've installed that. <
http://welcome.solutions.brother.com/bsc/public_s/id/linux/en/index.html%3E
I asked the System Settings: Printers to set it up (add the printer). The SS:P found the printer (so it must have found its IP address) and added it. But the SS:P was only willing to configure it with the IP Address "localhost". Not surprisingly, printing didn't work.
I even tried telling SS:P the printer's IP address, but it ignored that and used localhost.
That's odd. What output does this command give?:
su -c 'lpinfo -l -v'
(I'm hoping it lists the network printer there...)
Tim. */
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Am 01.04.2013 14:47, schrieb Noah Cutler:
I'm confused over the whole separate /usr partition is broken thing: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
Everything appears to work swimmingly here after 1 month of use -- separate /usr partition does not appear to be broken...anymore??
maybe, maybe not, it is not well tested at all
Just trying to future proof my setup; if it's better to merge /usr into rootfs, so be it, better to do it early days with the new system.
Otherwise, if someone can chime in here with some sage partitioning advice as to how to proceed moving forward with Fedora, that would be much appreciated.
FWIW, as a beginner the benefits I see in a diverse micro-managed partitioning scheme (vs. the mega partition) is being able to fsck quickly; clone partitions quickly (e.g. copy to additional disks), and prevent runaway logs and the like (there are likely others)
it makes ZERO sense to split /usr to a own partition you owuld really clone a partition containing the whole system or share it with another setup without the depending RPM database which lives in /var/lib/rpm/?
sorry but the idea of a seperate /usr is broken at all
On 04/01/2013 07:47 AM, Noah Cutler wrote:
Hey all.
I'm confused over the whole separate /usr partition is broken thing: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
From an email in current fedora-user thread we have: "That should not be necessary. And would break a very normal system setup of using separate drives, *even more so than the blasted can't have a separate /usr thing that happened recently*."
During Fedora 18 fresh install with custom partitioning chosen, Anaconda autocompletes mount points so I went with /boot, /, /user, /var, and /home partitions.
Everything appears to work swimmingly here after 1 month of use -- separate /usr partition does not appear to be broken...anymore??
Just trying to future proof my setup; if it's better to merge /usr into rootfs, so be it, better to do it early days with the new system.
Otherwise, if someone can chime in here with some sage partitioning advice as to how to proceed moving forward with Fedora, that would be much appreciated.
If you really want to keep a separate /usr (I do, mounted read-only and located on an SSD) you just need to arrange to have /usr mounted by dracut early in the boot sequence. It's not hard:
1. Copy the /usr line from your /etc/fstab into a (probably new) file /etc/fstab.sys .
2. Edit the file /etc/dracut.conf and change the line #add_dracutmodules+="" to read add_dracutmodules+="fstab-sys"
3. IMPORTANT: In /etc/fstab, disable the automatic fsck for /usr by putting a zero in field 6.
4. Run dracut to remake the initramfs in /boot.
That's it. Now your /usr gets mounted early in the boot sequence. It is available when needed, and you can ignore the warning from systemd. You will have to make your own arrangement for fsck on your /usr. If you allowed the automatic fsck to run, it would be guaranteed to fail since the filesystem is mounted. (The special handling for the root filesystem is hard-coded into fsck and would not apply to a pre-mounted /usr.)
Am 01.04.2013 14:47, schrieb Noah Cutler:
Hey all.
I'm confused over the whole separate /usr partition is broken thing: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
From an email in current fedora-user thread we have: "That should not be necessary. And would break a very normal system setup of using separate drives, *even more so than the blasted can't have a separate /usr thing that happened recently*."
During Fedora 18 fresh install with custom partitioning chosen, Anaconda autocompletes mount points so I went with /boot, /, /user, /var, and /home partitions.
Everything appears to work swimmingly here after 1 month of use -- separate /usr partition does not appear to be broken...anymore??
Just trying to future proof my setup; if it's better to merge /usr into rootfs, so be it, better to do it early days with the new system.
Otherwise, if someone can chime in here with some sage partitioning advice as to how to proceed moving forward with Fedora, that would be much appreciated.
FWIW, as a beginner the benefits I see in a diverse micro-managed partitioning scheme (vs. the mega partition) is being able to fsck quickly; clone partitions quickly (e.g. copy to additional disks), and prevent runaway logs and the like (there are likely others).
I'm thinking something like this would be "ideal" for a 256GB SSD: | /dev/sda1 /boot 181MB of 500MB /dev/sda2 / 606MB of 3GB | | extended: /dev/sda4 /usr 6.0GB of 12GB /dev/sda5 /var 1.5GB of 8GB /dev/sda6 /home 15GB of 30GB| free space the rest
Of course most seem to go with /boot / and /home, so my ideas are likely not grounded in reality ;-)
A separate /usr works fine in Fedora, because it is mounted from within the initramfs, before we switch to the real root.
Quoting: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken ... *Going Forward* ... There is no way to reliably bring up a modern system with an empty /usr. There are two alternatives to fix it: move /usr back to the rootfs or use an initramfs which can hide the split-off from the system. ...
Fedora uses an initramfs to boot and the initramfs explicitly mounts /usr, if it finds a mount entry in /etc/fstab of the real root.
No fstab.sys and dracut tricks should be needed here. If /usr is not mounted automatically it's a dracut bug, or you are missing some disk assembly kernel command line options like rd.luks.uuid=... rd.lvm.lv=.. or rd.md.uuid=...
Am 01.04.2013 14:57, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 01.04.2013 14:47, schrieb Noah Cutler:
I'm confused over the whole separate /usr partition is broken thing: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
Everything appears to work swimmingly here after 1 month of use -- separate /usr partition does not appear to be broken...anymore??
maybe, maybe not, it is not well tested at all
It was never broken, when we started mounting /usr from within the initramfs after the /usr-move.
Just trying to future proof my setup; if it's better to merge /usr into rootfs, so be it, better to do it early days with the new system.
Otherwise, if someone can chime in here with some sage partitioning advice as to how to proceed moving forward with Fedora, that would be much appreciated.
FWIW, as a beginner the benefits I see in a diverse micro-managed partitioning scheme (vs. the mega partition) is being able to fsck quickly; clone partitions quickly (e.g. copy to additional disks), and prevent runaway logs and the like (there are likely others)
it makes ZERO sense to split /usr to a own partition you owuld really clone a partition containing the whole system or share it with another setup without the depending RPM database which lives in /var/lib/rpm/?
sorry but the idea of a seperate /usr is broken at all
This is FUD. The idea is perfectly fine and we should bring our OS in shape for doing it so.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ojgzJOfWB8XaC5kqyrv4IhR9snZKBI77a02R...
Am 01.04.2013 17:26, schrieb Robert Nichols:
On 04/01/2013 07:47 AM, Noah Cutler wrote:
Hey all.
I'm confused over the whole separate /usr partition is broken thing: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
From an email in current fedora-user thread we have: "That should not be necessary. And would break a very normal system setup of using separate drives, *even more so than the blasted can't have a separate /usr thing that happened recently*."
During Fedora 18 fresh install with custom partitioning chosen, Anaconda autocompletes mount points so I went with /boot, /, /user, /var, and /home partitions.
Everything appears to work swimmingly here after 1 month of use -- separate /usr partition does not appear to be broken...anymore??
Just trying to future proof my setup; if it's better to merge /usr into rootfs, so be it, better to do it early days with the new system.
Otherwise, if someone can chime in here with some sage partitioning advice as to how to proceed moving forward with Fedora, that would be much appreciated.
If you really want to keep a separate /usr (I do, mounted read-only and located on an SSD) you just need to arrange to have /usr mounted by dracut early in the boot sequence. It's not hard:
Copy the /usr line from your /etc/fstab into a (probably new) file /etc/fstab.sys .
Edit the file /etc/dracut.conf and change the line #add_dracutmodules+="" to read add_dracutmodules+="fstab-sys"
IMPORTANT: In /etc/fstab, disable the automatic fsck for /usr by putting a zero in field 6.
Run dracut to remake the initramfs in /boot.
That's it. Now your /usr gets mounted early in the boot sequence. It is available when needed, and you can ignore the warning from systemd. You will have to make your own arrangement for fsck on your /usr. If you allowed the automatic fsck to run, it would be guaranteed to fail since the filesystem is mounted. (The special handling for the root filesystem is hard-coded into fsck and would not apply to a pre-mounted /usr.)
Can you elaborate why you need this?
dracut already mounts /usr automatically with the 98usrmount dracut module.
On 04/02/13 17:14, Harald Hoyer wrote:
This is FUD. The idea is perfectly fine and we should bring our OS in shape for doing it so.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ojgzJOfWB8XaC5kqyrv4IhR9snZKBI77a02R...
Google Drive says...
You need permission to access this item.
Am 02.04.2013 11:14, schrieb Harald Hoyer:
it makes ZERO sense to split /usr to a own partition you owuld really clone a partition containing the whole system or share it with another setup without the depending RPM database which lives in /var/lib/rpm/?
sorry but the idea of a seperate /usr is broken at all
This is FUD. The idea is perfectly fine and we should bring our OS in shape for doing it so
so explain what is FUD in the simple fact that snapshot/clone a sperated /usr where 99% of the files are from RPM packages while the RPM database is NOT under /usr makes no sense?
what do YOU imagine when as example (what was one of the arguments for UsrMove) a snapshot of /usr is done before a upgrade which changes the RPM database in /var/lib/rpm and you rollback to the snapshot while the RPM database still has all updates?
i can not imagine a better way to fuck up a OS-installation
Am 02.04.2013 11:18, schrieb Ed Greshko:
On 04/02/13 17:14, Harald Hoyer wrote:
This is FUD. The idea is perfectly fine and we should bring our OS in shape for doing it so.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ojgzJOfWB8XaC5kqyrv4IhR9snZKBI77a02R...
Google Drive says...
You need permission to access this item.
fixed permissions
On 04/02/2013 11:14 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Am 01.04.2013 14:57, schrieb Reindl Harald:
sorry but the idea of a seperate /usr is broken at all
ACK
This is FUD.
This is propaganda!
The idea is perfectly fine and we should bring our OS in shape for doing it so.
Nobody espects the father of UsrMove to say otherwise - It's just that many people disagree with you and would prefer to see UsrMov to be reverted.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 02.04.2013 11:23, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 02.04.2013 11:14, schrieb Harald Hoyer:
it makes ZERO sense to split /usr to a own partition you owuld really clone a partition containing the whole system or share it with another setup without the depending RPM database which lives in /var/lib/rpm/?
sorry but the idea of a seperate /usr is broken at all
This is FUD. The idea is perfectly fine and we should bring our OS in shape for doing it so
so explain what is FUD in the simple fact that snapshot/clone a sperated /usr where 99% of the files are from RPM packages while the RPM database is NOT under /usr makes no sense?
what do YOU imagine when as example (what was one of the arguments for UsrMove) a snapshot of /usr is done before a upgrade which changes the RPM database in /var/lib/rpm and you rollback to the snapshot while the RPM database still has all updates?
i can not imagine a better way to fuck up a OS-installation
We are not there yet. The target should be to have rpms only install to /usr and then this rpm DB can live in /usr also. Of course rpm does not support multiple databases... yet.
The use-case for a separate /usr is the "shared across multiple machines" use-case. For this use-case /usr is read-only anyway and rpm updates can only be made on the master machine. rpm on the client machines is useless and other mechanisms to keep /etc synchronized have to be used anyway.
Harald
Ok, so then separate /usr is apparently not broken, or for now there's a fallback mechanism (as of F18) to make things work in the event that /usr is on its own partition.
Either way my setup is working (appears to), but it would be nice to really know if separate usr is causing any issues at all, or if the intramfs definitely has my back with /usr entry in /etc/fstab (i.e. no need for dracut workaround suggested elsewhere in this thread).
Thanks for your awesome optimization guide, BTW: http://www.harald-hoyer.de/personal/blog/fedora-17-boot-optimization-from-15...
sub 4 second boot times are possible ;-)
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Harald Hoyer harald.hoyer@gmail.comwrote:
Am 01.04.2013 14:47, schrieb Noah Cutler:
Hey all.
I'm confused over the whole separate /usr partition is broken thing: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
From an email in current fedora-user thread we have: "That should not be necessary. And would break a very normal system setup of using separate drives, *even more so than the blasted can't have a separate /usr thing that happened recently*."
During Fedora 18 fresh install with custom partitioning chosen, Anaconda autocompletes mount points so I went with /boot, /, /user, /var, and
/home
partitions.
Everything appears to work swimmingly here after 1 month of use --
separate /usr
partition does not appear to be broken...anymore??
Just trying to future proof my setup; if it's better to merge /usr into
rootfs,
so be it, better to do it early days with the new system.
Otherwise, if someone can chime in here with some sage partitioning
advice as to
how to proceed moving forward with Fedora, that would be much
appreciated.
FWIW, as a beginner the benefits I see in a diverse micro-managed
partitioning
scheme (vs. the mega partition) is being able to fsck quickly; clone
partitions
quickly (e.g. copy to additional disks), and prevent runaway logs and
the like
(there are likely others).
I'm thinking something like this would be "ideal" for a 256GB SSD: | /dev/sda1 /boot 181MB of 500MB /dev/sda2 / 606MB of 3GB | | extended: /dev/sda4 /usr 6.0GB of 12GB /dev/sda5 /var 1.5GB of 8GB /dev/sda6 /home 15GB of 30GB| free space the rest
Of course most seem to go with /boot / and /home, so my ideas are likely
not
grounded in reality ;-)
A separate /usr works fine in Fedora, because it is mounted from within the initramfs, before we switch to the real root.
Quoting: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken ... *Going Forward* ... There is no way to reliably bring up a modern system with an empty /usr. There are two alternatives to fix it: move /usr back to the rootfs or use an initramfs which can hide the split-off from the system. ...
Fedora uses an initramfs to boot and the initramfs explicitly mounts /usr, if it finds a mount entry in /etc/fstab of the real root.
No fstab.sys and dracut tricks should be needed here. If /usr is not mounted automatically it's a dracut bug, or you are missing some disk assembly kernel command line options like rd.luks.uuid=... rd.lvm.lv=.. or rd.md.uuid=...
Am 02.04.2013 11:35, schrieb Harald Hoyer:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 02.04.2013 11:23, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 02.04.2013 11:14, schrieb Harald Hoyer:
it makes ZERO sense to split /usr to a own partition you owuld really clone a partition containing the whole system or share it with another setup without the depending RPM database which lives in /var/lib/rpm/?
sorry but the idea of a seperate /usr is broken at all
This is FUD. The idea is perfectly fine and we should bring our OS in shape for doing it so
so explain what is FUD in the simple fact that snapshot/clone a sperated /usr where 99% of the files are from RPM packages while the RPM database is NOT under /usr makes no sense?
what do YOU imagine when as example (what was one of the arguments for UsrMove) a snapshot of /usr is done before a upgrade which changes the RPM database in /var/lib/rpm and you rollback to the snapshot while the RPM database still has all updates?
i can not imagine a better way to fuck up a OS-installation
We are not there yet. The target should be to have rpms only install to /usr and then this rpm DB can live in /usr also. Of course rpm does not support multiple databases... yet
oh my god
Am 02.04.2013 11:35, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 04/02/2013 11:14 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Am 01.04.2013 14:57, schrieb Reindl Harald:
sorry but the idea of a seperate /usr is broken at all
ACK
This is FUD.
This is propaganda!
The idea is perfectly fine and we should bring our OS in shape for doing it so.
Nobody espects the father of UsrMove to say otherwise - It's just that many people disagree with you and would prefer to see UsrMov to be reverted
USRMOVE CAN NOT AND MZST NOT BE REVERTED
this was a one-way street and after the bridge was crossed with F17 you can not revert it ona working installation without re-install and to enforce this would be the dumbest decision which could be done, this train has gone
Am 02.04.2013 11:50, schrieb Noah Cutler:
Harald
Ok, so then separate /usr is apparently not broken, or for now there's a fallback mechanism (as of F18) to make things work in the event that /usr is on its own partition.
Either way my setup is working (appears to), but it would be nice to really know if separate usr is causing any issues at all, or if the intramfs definitely has my back with /usr entry in /etc/fstab (i.e. no need for dracut workaround suggested elsewhere in this thread).
The initramfs has your back covered. The only problem arises, when the initramfs has not enough information or tools or kernel drivers to mount /usr or to assemble the device it lives on. This case should not be possible, if you set up /usr with the installer. If you encounter such a problem, then please file a bug, because dracut (the initramfs framework) should be able to cope with all supported installation locations.
Thanks for your awesome optimization guide, BTW: http://www.harald-hoyer.de/personal/blog/fedora-17-boot-optimization-from-15...
sub 4 second boot times are possible ;-)
you are welcome :)
$ systemd-analyze Startup finished in 6s 730ms 730us (firmware) + 35ms 148us (loader) + 665ms 330us (kernel) + 428ms 948us (initrd) + 1s 598ms 595us (userspace) = 9s 458ms 751us
$ cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
.... I need a faster BIOS :)
Great, I did just that, setup /usr with the installer -- basically stumbled upon a working solution, looks like things would have broken pre-F18...
Nice systemd-analyze results, incredible. What led me to your guide was NetworkManager's wait-online-service, which alone added 30 seconds to boot time! Down to 6 seconds now, and should get under 4 seconds with "sudo dracut -f -H -o plymouth" test that I'll run later today.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Harald Hoyer harald.hoyer@gmail.comwrote:
Am 02.04.2013 11:50, schrieb Noah Cutler:
Harald
Ok, so then separate /usr is apparently not broken, or for now there's a fallback mechanism (as of F18) to make things work in the event that
/usr is on
its own partition.
Either way my setup is working (appears to), but it would be nice to
really know
if separate usr is causing any issues at all, or if the intramfs
definitely has
my back with /usr entry in /etc/fstab (i.e. no need for dracut workaround suggested elsewhere in this thread).
The initramfs has your back covered. The only problem arises, when the initramfs has not enough information or tools or kernel drivers to mount /usr or to assemble the device it lives on. This case should not be possible, if you set up /usr with the installer. If you encounter such a problem, then please file a bug, because dracut (the initramfs framework) should be able to cope with all supported installation locations.
Thanks for your awesome optimization guide, BTW:
http://www.harald-hoyer.de/personal/blog/fedora-17-boot-optimization-from-15...
sub 4 second boot times are possible ;-)
you are welcome :)
$ systemd-analyze Startup finished in 6s 730ms 730us (firmware) + 35ms 148us (loader) + 665ms 330us (kernel) + 428ms 948us (initrd) + 1s 598ms 595us (userspace) = 9s 458ms 751us
$ cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat)
.... I need a faster BIOS :)
On 04/02/2013 04:17 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Am 01.04.2013 17:26, schrieb Robert Nichols:
If you really want to keep a separate /usr (I do, mounted read-only and located on an SSD) you just need to arrange to have /usr mounted by dracut early in the boot sequence. It's not hard:
Copy the /usr line from your /etc/fstab into a (probably new) file /etc/fstab.sys .
Edit the file /etc/dracut.conf and change the line #add_dracutmodules+="" to read add_dracutmodules+="fstab-sys"
IMPORTANT: In /etc/fstab, disable the automatic fsck for /usr by putting a zero in field 6.
Run dracut to remake the initramfs in /boot.
That's it. Now your /usr gets mounted early in the boot sequence. It is available when needed, and you can ignore the warning from systemd. You will have to make your own arrangement for fsck on your /usr. If you allowed the automatic fsck to run, it would be guaranteed to fail since the filesystem is mounted. (The special handling for the root filesystem is hard-coded into fsck and would not apply to a pre-mounted /usr.)
Can you elaborate why you need this?
dracut already mounts /usr automatically with the 98usrmount dracut module.
The machines where I am doing that are running RHEL 5 and 6 clones, and that module does not appear to be available. Looks like it's easier now. Sorry.